trial_getter

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'retrieves' information (implying read-only behavior) and specifies what information is included (protocol details, locations, outcomes, references). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second elaborates on scope, and the remaining sentences provide clear usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has a single parameter with 100% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description provides good contextual completeness. It clearly explains the tool's purpose, scope, and relationship to alternatives. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like rate limits or error handling, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (nct_id) with its description and example. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'NCT ID' in context, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch comprehensive details', 'retrieves all available information') and identifies the resource ('clinical trial by its NCT ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it provides 'comprehensive details' versus specialized getters for specific sections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states this tool is for 'comprehensive details' and lists four specialized getter tools for 'specific sections only', naming each alternative (trial_protocol_getter, trial_locations_getter, trial_outcomes_getter, trial_references_getter).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.